Population & Deep Ecology

I want to discuss the implications of the 4^th basic principle of deep ecology from the Devall and Sessions article (aka question 2). The principle states “the flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease” (231). The human population boom is seen here as not only detrimental to the environment but to the survival of human beings themselves.

I like this principle for two reasons:

First, and similar to issues of global warming, this restriction on human population growth asks humans to recognize that their actions are inextricably linked to their environment. That is, there is no separation between the individual and the community but each is seen here as two sides of one coin. Humans are both individuals and not-individuals. This principle compliments deep ecology’s goal of creating an ethic of interconnection – a point I think is intuitively correct.

Second, I think this principle does a good job of showing that human population and culture will stop flourishing at a certain point – a claim I think is underappreciated by most people against population regulation. Our population can only expand so far before issues of crowding, density, sensory overload, resource management, and territoriality become overbearing.

This point also does some work against the counterclaim that human beings have a natural drive to reproduce (both biologically and, to some, theologically) and that therefore regulation is both impractical and in violation of natural rights. I can concede that human beings do have a drive to reproduce, that this drive is natural, and that in the best circumstances this drive shouldn’t be stifled. I’ll even concede that, all things being equal, this drive is equivalent to a general right humans should have. However, the second point I’ve drawn out shows that this right isn’t absolute but relative to the circumstances. The Chinese law prohibiting multiple offspring serves as an example of a government that ultimately had to override the natural right of its people in order to provide different, higher-order rights. It would be wrong to produce children in a world where the population prevents the best conditions for growth and maturity – indeed, this is wrong both in regard to obligations to the child and to the already suffering population.